FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Petition is a constitutionally guaranteed right in the Philippines, allowing citizens to express their views collectively and peacefully, especially on matters of public interest. It is enshrined in Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
This right ensures that individuals or groups can organize and express dissent or support for government actions, policies, or other social issues. The right also empowers citizens to petition the government for remedies and reforms.
​
The right to freedom of assembly and petition is a cornerstone of democracy, providing citizens the means to express their collective will, voice dissent, and demand accountability from their government. However, this right is subject to reasonable regulation, especially when it intersects with concerns for public safety and order. The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently upheld this right, striking a balance between protecting fundamental freedoms and maintaining societal peace.
Scope of the Right
The freedom of assembly includes the right of individuals or groups to organize peaceful assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, or protests. Meanwhile, the right to petition allows individuals or groups to approach the government to seek the correction of injustices or to express opposition to policies or actions.
Peaceful Assembly: The right is limited to peaceful assemblies. Assemblies that become violent or riotous may be lawfully dispersed.
Petition for Redress of Grievances: This allows citizens to request changes in government policies or laws, report misconduct, and demand action.
​
The roots of these rights in the Philippines can be traced back to colonial resistance and the eventual democratic foundation laid by the Malolos Constitution and later, the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
1. Spanish Colonial Rule and the Katipunan
During the period of Spanish colonization, Filipinos were largely denied basic rights, including the right to assemble and petition the government. Secret societies like the Katipunan fought for independence, with assemblies often held in secret due to the harsh repression of public dissent.
2. American Period and the Philippine Bill of Rights
When the Philippines came under American rule, the Philippine Bill of 1902 included a Bill of Rights similar to the U.S. Constitution. It granted Filipinos the right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress, a significant shift from Spanish-era restrictions.
3. 1987 Philippine Constitution
After the ousting of Ferdinand Marcos and the People Power Revolution, the 1987 Constitution was drafted, guaranteeing the rights to freedom of assembly and petition. Article III, Section 4 and Section 8 of the Bill of Rights enshrine these freedoms, emphasizing their importance in a democratic society.
Key Doctrines and Legal Principles:
1. Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of assembly refers to the right of individuals to gather peacefully in order to express, promote, and defend common interests. This right is not absolute, as reasonable restrictions may be imposed for public order and safety.
2. Freedom of Petition
The right to petition gives people the power to formally request the government to address grievances. This includes presenting requests, complaints, or proposals, and is an essential part of the democratic process.
3. Police Power and Restrictions
While these rights are protected, the state can impose restrictions, especially for the sake of public safety, order, and the general welfare, under its police power. Such restrictions must pass the test of reasonableness and necessity.
4. Content-Neutral Regulation
The government may regulate the time, place, and manner of assemblies but cannot impose restrictions based on the content of speech, ensuring that freedom of assembly is not stifled simply because of the ideas being expressed.
Summary:
The rights to freedom of assembly and petition are foundational to democratic governance, ensuring that citizens have the means to express dissent and advocate for change.
These rights, deeply rooted in historical struggles for freedom, remain vital in the Philippines, where peaceful assemblies have played a critical role in political and social movements like the People Power Revolution. Although these freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed, they can be subject to reasonable restrictions, balancing individual rights with the broader public interest.
​
G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006
​
This case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985), which regulates the right to peaceably assemble in the Philippines.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) and other petitioners challenged the law, arguing that its requirement to secure permits for public assemblies violated their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The petitioners sought to hold a rally without securing a permit and were dispersed by the authorities, leading them to file this case.
The petitioners argued that requiring a permit before holding an assembly was prior restraint, violating the freedoms guaranteed under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Bill of Rights). They contended that such permits could be arbitrarily denied, limiting their right to express dissent and petition the government.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the government, contended that the law was a content-neutral regulation that only aimed to regulate the time, place, and manner of public assemblies to ensure public safety and order. The law does not suppress free speech but ensures that public spaces are used orderly.
Issue:
Whether the requirement of a permit to conduct public assemblies under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. The Court ruled that the permit requirement under the law was a valid exercise of police power, as it regulated only the time, place, and manner of public assemblies to ensure public order and safety. The law did not control or suppress the content of the speech or assembly.
The Court held that the permit system provided by the law is necessary for maintaining public order and does not violate the right to free speech or assembly. The permit requirement is content-neutral, which means it does not prohibit assemblies based on their political content or message but is only meant to regulate the conditions under which such assemblies take place.
However, the Court also emphasized that “freedom parks” (designated areas for public assemblies) should be established in cities and municipalities where no permit is required to hold rallies and protests. The failure to establish these freedom parks within six months from the decision would mean that assemblies can be held without the need for permits, in compliance with the Constitution.
Doctrines:
1. Content-Neutral Regulation: Laws regulating public assemblies, such as the requirement for a permit, are permissible if they regulate only the time, place, and manner of the assembly. These regulations should not control the content of the speech or assembly.
2. Freedom of Assembly: The right to peaceably assemble is a fundamental right, but it can be subject to reasonable regulation to maintain public order. The government can require permits to ensure that assemblies do not lead to public disorder or infringement of other people’s rights.
3. Freedom Parks: The Court mandated that cities and municipalities must establish freedom parks within six months, where no permits are required to hold public assemblies. If the local government units fail to do so, public assemblies may be held in any public place without the need for a permit.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Public Assembly Act of 1985 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880) is constitutional
​
Calleja, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al.
G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021
​
This case arises from Proclamation No. 922 issued by the President of the Philippines, declaring a state of public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The proclamation gave the executive branch broader powers to address the pandemic, including imposing restrictions on mass gatherings.
Petitioners, led by Howard M. Calleja and other concerned citizens, challenged the government’s restrictions on public assemblies during the pandemic. They argued that these restrictions violated the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Petitioners further argued that the executive measures imposed in response to the pandemic amounted to a form of prior restraint, which is a violation of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.
The Executive Secretary and other government officials contended that the restrictions on public gatherings were necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The respondents argued that the limitations were a valid exercise of the police power of the state, aimed at protecting public health and safety during a public health emergency.
Issues:
1. Whether the government’s restrictions on public assemblies during the COVID-19 pandemic violate the constitutional right to freedom of assembly.
2. Whether the government’s exercise of police power in the interest of public health justifies the restrictions.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the government’s authority to impose restrictions on public assemblies during a public health emergency. The Court ruled that while freedom of assembly is a constitutional right, it is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated, especially when there is a compelling state interest, such as protecting public health.
The Court emphasized that the restrictions were imposed as part of the state’s police power to promote public welfare, and in this case, to prevent the spread of a deadly virus. It further explained that the COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented threat to public health and that the government’s response, including restrictions on mass gatherings, was a reasonable and necessary measure.
The Court found that the limitations on public gatherings were content-neutral regulations, as they were not aimed at suppressing the speech or messages of any particular group. Instead, they were enacted to ensure the safety and health of the general public. The Court also noted that the restrictions were temporary and proportionate to the legitimate objective of curbing the spread of COVID-19.
Doctrines:
1. Police Power and Public Health: The state may restrict certain constitutional rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, if doing so is necessary to protect public health and safety, especially during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Content-Neutral Regulation: Government actions that regulate the time, place, and manner of public assemblies, especially for public safety reasons, are permissible so long as they do not target the content or message of the assemblies.
3. Reasonable Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly: The constitutional right to assemble can be subject to reasonable limitations, particularly in circumstances where the state must balance individual rights with the greater public good.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on public assemblies during the pandemic, stating that these measures were within the scope of the government’s police power to safeguard public health.
The limitations were found to be reasonable, necessary, and content-neutral, thus not amounting to a violation of the freedom of assembly. The Court emphasized that public health and safety can sometimes outweigh individual liberties, especially in extraordinary situations like a global pandemic.
​
BP 880 Regulation of Freedom of Assembly
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 or the Public Assembly Act of 1985 is a law that governs the conduct of public assemblies or peaceful demonstrations in the Philippines. It was enacted to regulate the exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of assembly while balancing it with the need to maintain public order and safety. Below is a summary of the law’s key provisions:
Key Provisions:
1. Definition of Public Assembly:
A public assembly is defined as any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession, or any other gathering for the purpose of expressing views on public issues.
2. Permit Requirement:
A permit to hold a public assembly is required if the assembly is to be held in a public place. Public places include streets, plazas, parks, and other public spaces.
No permit is needed for assemblies in freedom parks, private property, or government-owned campuses (with prior consent of the administration).
3. Application for Permit:
Organizers must submit a written application for a permit to the mayor or local government official at least five (5) working days before the event.
The application must include the date, time, venue, and details of the planned assembly.
4. Grounds for Denial of Permit:
The local official may only deny the permit if there is a clear and present danger to public order, safety, or morals.
Denial of the permit must be in writing and issued within 24 hours from the filing of the application.
If the application is denied, the applicant can appeal to the court for a review of the decision.
5. Duties of the Local Government:
​
Once a permit is granted, the local government has the duty to assist in peaceful assembly by deploying law enforcement to ensure safety and security.
Law enforcement must act with maximum tolerance and may not interfere with the assembly unless there is violence or serious threat to public order.
6. Freedom Parks:
The law mandates that every city and municipality designate at least one freedom park where public assemblies may be held without the need for a permit.
7. Prohibited Acts:
Dispersing or disrupting a peaceful public assembly is prohibited unless it becomes violent or threatens public order.
Participants in a public assembly are prohibited from carrying firearms, explosives, or other deadly weapons.
8. Dispersal of Assembly:
If the assembly becomes violent, law enforcement may disperse it using only necessary and reasonable force.
Before any dispersal, the law requires a formal announcement to end the assembly. A reasonable time must be given for participants to leave.
9. Penalties:
Violations of the Public Assembly Act, including dispersing a peaceful assembly without just cause, may lead to penalties for responsible authorities.
Significance:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 seeks to protect the constitutional right to freedom of assembly while ensuring public safety. It establishes a clear framework for holding public assemblies, specifying when permits are needed and the role of law enforcement in ensuring the peaceful conduct of gatherings.
The law also ensures that no permit is required for protests in designated freedom parks and emphasizes the duty of government authorities to facilitate, rather than suppress, public expression.
Content-Neutral vs. Content-Based Regulation
Government restrictions on the freedom of assembly must generally be content-neutral, meaning they cannot be based on the message or viewpoint of the speech but should only address practical concerns such as time, place, and manner of the assembly. The distinction between content-neutral and content-based restrictions is critical in determining the constitutionality of government regulations concerning public assemblies.
1. Content-Neutral Restrictions:
These restrictions focus on regulating the time, place, and manner of assemblies, without regard to the ideas or viewpoints being expressed. The government may regulate the logistics of the assembly, such as the route of a march, the use of loudspeakers, or the hours when public areas are accessible, to ensure public safety and order. For these restrictions to be upheld, they must meet three requirements:
1. Significant Government Interest: The regulation must serve an important public interest, such as maintaining public order, traffic control, or safety.
2. Narrowly Tailored: The restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, meaning it should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve its purpose.
3. Alternative Channels: The regulation must leave open ample alternative channels for communication, ensuring that the group can still express its message in another form or location.
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981) – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a content-neutral regulation requiring all groups to use designated booths for solicitation at a state fair. The restriction was considered a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression, as it was aimed at managing the fairgrounds and did not target any specific viewpoint.
In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has similarly emphasized that content-neutral regulations are permissible, provided that they are justified by public order and safety concerns. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985), government officials may regulate assemblies to ensure that they do not cause significant disruption to public order, but any restrictions must be based on neutral criteria and not the content of the speech.
​
Content-Based Restrictions:
Content-based restrictions are those that regulate speech or assembly based on the ideas, messages, or viewpoints being expressed. Such regulations are presumptively unconstitutional because they infringe on the core of free speech rights. Content-based restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, which means the government must prove:
Compelling State Interest: The restriction must serve a compelling government interest, such as national security or preventing imminent violence.
Narrowly Tailored: The restriction must be the least restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest.
Content-based restrictions are particularly concerning because they enable the government to silence specific viewpoints or messages, effectively suppressing dissent or minority opinions. Courts are generally wary of any regulation that appears to be content-based, especially when it involves political speech or public protests, which are considered vital to democratic discourse.
Case Example:
• National Press Club v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 102653, March 5, 1992) – The Philippine Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Omnibus Election Code that prohibited the use of media for expressing opinions about political candidates during the election period. The Court ruled that the regulation was content-based and failed to meet strict scrutiny, as it directly suppressed political speech.
• Reyes v. Bagatsing (G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983) – In this case, a permit to hold a rally at Plaza Miranda was initially denied due to concerns over public safety. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the denial of the permit was unconstitutional because it was based on fear of the content of the speech (political dissent). The Court emphasized that content-based restrictions, unless justified by a compelling reason, are impermissible.
Key Principles from Jurisprudence:
• Prior Restraint Doctrine: Any regulation that requires government permission before the expression of speech, including assemblies, is considered prior restraint. Prior restraint is generally impermissible unless it involves content-neutral regulations aimed at maintaining order and safety. Permits for public assemblies, such as those required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, must meet the standards of content-neutrality and cannot be used to suppress speech based on its content.
• Clear and Present Danger Rule: Content-based restrictions may only be imposed if the speech poses a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. This standard is often invoked when the government claims that public assemblies may incite violence or pose a threat to public safety.
Case Example:
• Calleja, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al. (G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021) – The petitioners challenged the legality of certain quarantine restrictions that limited public assemblies. The Court ruled that the restrictions were content-neutral as they were primarily aimed at
Clear and Present Danger
The clear and present danger test is a legal standard used by courts to determine when the government may lawfully limit certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech or the freedom of assembly, without violating constitutional rights. In the context of the freedom of assembly, the test allows the government to restrict assemblies that pose a serious and imminent threat to public order, safety, or national security. However, mere speculation or remote possibilities of danger are not sufficient to justify restrictions.
Clear and Present Danger Test: Key Elements
1. Imminence: The danger posed by the assembly must be immediate, not speculative or a distant possibility.
2. Substantial Threat: The threat must be significant, not trivial or minor. It must be a real and serious threat to public order, national security, or other important government interests.
3. Direct Connection: The conduct of the assembly must have a direct and immediate connection to the danger. The assembly must actively create or incite the danger.
Application to Freedom of Assembly
The government has a duty to balance the constitutional right to assemble peacefully with the need to protect public safety and order. Restrictions based on the clear and present danger test must be content-neutral and applied equally to all groups, regardless of their message or cause.
When dealing with assemblies or protests, courts apply this test to ensure that government authorities are not overstepping their bounds by suppressing peaceful demonstrations based solely on potential or hypothetical dangers. In practice, this test prevents authorities from arbitrarily banning assemblies unless the threat they pose is truly imminent and significant.
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969
​
The petitioners, Arsenio Gonzales and Felicisimo R. Cabigao, filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880, which was enacted to regulate election-related activities and prevent election disturbances, including restrictions on the display of election materials. They argued that the law was unconstitutional as it infringed on their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which are protected by the Constitution.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which was tasked with enforcing the law, had issued regulations that limited certain forms of expression and assembly, particularly those that could disrupt the peace during the election period. The petitioners contended that these restrictions violated their rights to engage in political speech and peaceful assembly, and asked the Court to declare Republic Act No. 4880 unconstitutional.
Issue:
The central issue was whether Republic Act No. 4880 and its restrictions on election-related activities, including assembly and speech, were constitutional under the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 4880 was constitutional, but it applied the clear and present danger test to evaluate the constitutionality of the law’s provisions.
The Court acknowledged the importance of freedom of speech and assembly as fundamental rights under the Constitution but also recognized that these rights could be limited if their exercise posed a clear and present danger to public order or the functioning of government.
Doctrine:
The clear and present danger doctrine was applied by the Court to evaluate the constitutionality of restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. The Court noted that the government can impose restrictions on these freedoms if the exercise of such rights poses an immediate and substantial threat to public order or national security.
The Court also emphasized that restrictions on speech and assembly must be content-neutral, meaning they should not target the message being expressed but rather focus on concerns such as time, place, and manner of the assembly.
The Court held that Republic Act No. 4880 was a legitimate attempt to protect the integrity of the election process by preventing disruptions and violence, and that the law did not unduly restrict the right to peaceful assembly or expression.
Importance:
The ruling established that while freedom of assembly and speech are fundamental rights, they are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limitations, especially when there is a clear and present danger to public order or the integrity of state functions, such as elections.
In this case, the Court found that the clear and present danger posed by potentially disruptive activities during the election period justified the restrictions imposed by Republic Act No. 4880, and upheld the law’s constitutionality.
Summary:
The clear and present danger test remains an essential tool in balancing constitutional freedoms with the need to maintain public order. This case further clarified that the government could impose restrictions on freedom of assembly and speech if these freedoms present an imminent threat to national security or public peace, such as during the election period.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza
G.R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010
​
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a petition against Manuel A. Atienza, the Mayor of Manila, to declare the Manila City Ordinance No. 8027 as unconstitutional. The ordinance required the wearing of identification cards by all individuals entering government offices in Manila, which was seen as an infringement on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and the right to privacy.
Atienza, in his capacity as mayor, issued the ordinance to impose a rule aimed at improving security within Manila’s government offices. It mandated that individuals wear identification cards when entering government buildings or offices to prevent illegal activities and to enhance security in the city.
However, the IBP argued that the ordinance violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of assembly and the right to privacy, as it had the potential to restrict the free movement and assembly of individuals and unlawfully infringed on the privacy of citizens who may not want to identify themselves.
Issue:
The main issue in this case was whether Manila City Ordinance No. 8027 violated the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and privacy guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Manila City Ordinance No. 8027 as unconstitutional.
The Court held that the ordinance, although designed for security purposes, imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement and the right to privacy. The decision emphasized that the right to privacy and freedom of assembly should not be arbitrarily restricted by local government regulations without showing a clear, present, and reasonable threat to public safety or security.
The Court stated that while the government can enact laws to promote public safety, these laws must still respect basic constitutional rights and should not be overbroad or overly invasive. The ordinance, in this case, was found to be a blanket measure that unnecessarily infringed on the rights of individuals to move freely without being required to display identification unless there was a legitimate need for such a measure based on security concerns.
Doctrine:
The decision reaffirmed the principle of constitutional rights, particularly in balancing public safety with individual freedoms. The Court held that:
1. Freedom of movement and privacy are protected rights under the Constitution, and government regulations that restrict these freedoms must meet strict standards of necessity and reasonableness.
2. Laws or ordinances restricting freedom of assembly or movement should not be overbroad and should only address specific needs without infringing upon the fundamental rights of citizens.
3. The government must show a clear and present danger or substantial need for imposing such measures that restrict fundamental rights, and these measures must be narrowly tailored to achieve the specific goal without being overly intrusive.
Importance:
This case highlights the limits of local government power in regulating public behavior when such regulations affect fundamental rights. It also reaffirms that security measures or ordinances should not unduly infringe on the freedom of assembly, movement, or privacy of individuals. Local ordinances should strike a balance between ensuring public safety and respecting individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared Manila City Ordinance No. 8027 unconstitutional because it imposed unreasonable and excessive restrictions on individuals’ right to freedom of movement and right to privacy.
The case underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights even in the face of public security measures, ensuring that any restriction on freedoms must be justifiable and not overly broad.
Importance of the Clear and Present Danger Test
The clear and present danger test is essential in safeguarding democratic freedoms, particularly the right to assemble and express dissent. It ensures that the government can only interfere with assemblies when there is an actual, demonstrable threat to public safety or national security.
This prevents authorities from using vague or arbitrary reasons to suppress political dissent or unpopular speech.
Imminent Lawless Action Test
​The Imminent Lawless Action test is a more modern standard developed primarily in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, notably in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). It has since been applied in different legal contexts, including the Philippines, where it serves as a threshold for limiting free speech and assembly.
Key Characteristics:
Focus on lawless action: This test focuses on whether the speech or assembly is likely to incite imminent lawless action (i.e., immediate acts of violence or illegal behavior).
Requirement for immediacy: The threat or incitement must be immediate. It is not enough to claim that the speech or assembly could result in violence in the future or at some uncertain time.
Prohibited conduct: It is not enough to show that the assembly promotes illegal activity; the assembly or speech must incite imminent illegal conduct (i.e., violence, riots, destruction of property).
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech or assembly can be restricted only if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to result in such action. This standard has been applied in various legal systems as a key safeguard against overly broad restrictions on free expression.
​
​
Conclusion:
Both the clear and present danger rule and the imminent lawless action test serve as important safeguards to prevent unlawful restrictions on freedom of assembly. While the clear and present danger test allows broader restrictions based on a serious, immediate threat to public safety, the imminent lawless action test places a higher bar for restricting speech and assembly by requiring incitement to immediate illegal acts.
In applying either doctrine, courts must carefully weigh the competing interests of public safety and individual freedoms, ensuring that the restrictions imposed on the exercise of freedom of assembly do not unjustifiably infringe upon the constitutional rights of individuals.
​
Domingo, et al. v. Badoy-Partosa
A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC, August 115, 2023
Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa, a private citizen, made inflammatory posts on her Facebook account targeting Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar. The posts contained accusations of favoritism towards the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and threats of violence against the judge.
These posts led to widespread hateful reactions and posed a risk of undermining public trust in the judiciary. In light of the gravity of her statements, Badoy-Partosa was cited for contempt of court.
Issue:
Whether Badoy-Partosa’s statements, made on her personal social media account, constitute indirect contempt of court, and if so, whether they are protected under the right to freedom of speech.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Badoy-Partosa’s posts were in fact indirect contempt of court. The Court found that her statements created a clear and present danger to the administration of justice, especially in undermining the integrity of the judiciary and promoting lawless action.
The Court applied the Brandenburg test, which is used to determine whether speech is constitutionally protected or whether it is a form of incitement to imminent lawless action. According to this test, speech is protected if it is not directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. However, if speech is intended to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action, it is not protected by the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that the speech in question met the conditions of the Brandenburg test for unprotected speech:
1. Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action – Badoy-Partosa’s statements could be interpreted as calling for violent retaliation or action against the judge, which is a form of incitement to lawlessness.
2. Likely to incite or produce such action – Given the nature of the posts and the strong reactions they provoked, there was a reasonable likelihood that her words could incite lawless behavior against the judiciary or its members.
Despite Badoy-Partosa’s claim that her posts were a form of free speech, the Court determined that they posed a danger to public order and undermined the judicial system. Therefore, her right to freedom of speech did not extend to expressions that incited violence or other unlawful acts.
Decision:
Badoy-Partosa was found guilty of indirect contempt and fined PHP 30,000. The Court also warned that further similar actions could result in more severe penalties. The Court underscored that while criticism of public officials is generally allowed, such criticisms must be grounded in truth and cannot be malicious or reckless.
Doctrine:
This case underscores the principle that speech which incites imminent lawless action is not protected under the Constitution. The Court applied the Brandenburg test to assess whether the speech posed a clear and present danger of inciting unlawful action. The test requires that the speech must meet both conditions of being directed to inciting imminent lawless action and being likely to produce such action.
​
The Brandenburg test is a legal standard used in the United States to determine when speech, particularly inflammatory or provocative speech, can be restricted without violating the First Amendment right to free speech. It was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This test is pivotal in deciding whether speech constitutes incitement to violence or lawless action, which is not protected under the First Amendment.
Brandenburg Test Criteria:
To fall outside the protection of free speech, speech must meet two conditions:
1. Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action:
The speech must incite illegal activity or violence. It is not enough that the speech expresses ideas or calls for illegal action at some point in the future; it must specifically advocate for immediate unlawful conduct.
2. Likely to incite or produce such imminent lawless action:
The speech must be likely to lead to immediate illegal action. If the speech is not likely to result in imminent harm or unlawful acts, it remains protected by the First Amendment. There must be a high probability that the speech will cause imminent lawless action.
Application of the Brandenburg Test:
The Brandenburg test creates a distinction between general advocacy (which is protected) and speech that incites imminent unlawful actions (which is not protected). It allows individuals to freely express ideas, even controversial ones, as long as they do not directly call for imminent illegal actions.
Key Points:
Content-Based Restrictions: The government can impose restrictions on speech that is directed at inciting imminent unlawful acts but cannot limit speech solely based on its content or viewpoint.
Imminence Requirement: The speech must incite immediate unlawful actions, not actions that may occur in the future.
Clear and Present Danger Test: The Brandenburg test essentially replaced the earlier clear and present danger test, which allowed the government to restrict speech if it posed a general threat of harm. Brandenburg narrowed this approach by requiring that the danger be “imminent.”
The Court also reaffirmed the importance of public officials being subject to criticism, but such criticism must be based on facts and truth, free from malice, and not aimed at inciting violence or lawlessness.
Doctrine of Prior Restraint
The Doctrine of Prior Restraint refers to the prohibition against government actions that prevent the exercise of free speech or the right to peaceful assembly before it actually occurs. This doctrine upholds the principle that individuals should be free to express their ideas, opinions, and grievances without interference from the state, unless there is a compelling reason to prevent immediate harm, such as a threat to public safety.
Overview of the Doctrine:
Prior restraint refers to any governmental regulation or action that prevents speech or expression from taking place.
It is considered a serious infringement on the right to free speech and assembly because it limits expression before it can even occur, effectively censoring speech preemptively.
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, expression, and the press, while Section 8 guarantees the people’s right to peaceful assembly and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Doctrine of Prior Restraint and Freedom of Assembly:
The right to assembly allows individuals to gather peacefully to express their views, protest against government actions, or demand certain reforms. The government cannot prevent this right unless there is a valid justification rooted in the need to maintain public order, safety, or national security.
When the government seeks to regulate assemblies by requiring permits or imposing restrictions, it must ensure that such regulations are content-neutral and that they do not preemptively stop the exercise of this right.
​
1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015
​
1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK), a party-list organization, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, specifically Section 7(g), items (5) and (6). These provisions prohibited the posting of election campaign or propaganda materials outside of authorized areas, including public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals, without prior consent.
1-UTAK argued that these restrictions infringed on the right to free speech of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals, who wanted to express their political views by displaying campaign materials on their vehicles and premises.
COMELEC defended the resolution, asserting that PUVs and transport terminals, while privately owned, serve a public function and are subject to government regulation to ensure fair and equal campaigning during elections.
Issues:
1. Whether Section 7(g) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, as it pertains to prohibiting the posting of campaign materials in PUVs and transport terminals, constitutes prior restraint on free speech.
2. Whether the regulation violates the equal protection clause by discriminating against PUV and transport terminal owners.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of 1-UTAK, declaring the relevant provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 unconstitutional for violating the rights to free speech and equal protection.
Held:
1. Prior Restraint and Freedom of Speech:
The Court held that prohibiting campaign materials in PUVs and transport terminals constitutes prior restraint on the freedom of speech. The right to freedom of expression extends to private individuals and entities, and any limitation or regulation imposed by the government must be justified under a high standard. In this case, the COMELEC failed to show a compelling state interest that justified restricting the display of campaign materials in PUVs and transport terminals.
2. Content-Neutral Regulation:
While the government may impose content-neutral regulations (such as time, place, and manner restrictions) to maintain public order, the Court ruled that the prohibition in this case was not content-neutral because it targeted a particular form of political expression—campaign materials in a specific setting. The government must refrain from limiting speech unless there is a clear and present danger or a substantial public interest that justifies the restriction.
3. Equal Protection Clause:
The Court found that the regulation violated the equal protection clause. There was no substantial distinction between owners of PUVs and transport terminals and owners of private vehicles or other private property. Both groups should have equal freedom to express political views through campaign materials. The unequal treatment of PUV and transport terminal owners was unjustified.
Doctrine:
The case reaffirms the principle that government regulations that limit the right to free speech and freedom of expression are presumed unconstitutional unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. The ruling also emphasizes that content-based restrictions, which target specific messages or viewpoints, must pass strict scrutiny. Additionally, the regulation must treat all individuals and groups equally under the equal protection clause.
Impact:
The decision highlights the need for the COMELEC to ensure that its regulations during election periods do not infringe on the fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly. It affirms that even in contexts involving public spaces or vehicles serving the public, restrictions on political speech require strong justification and must not disproportionately affect certain groups without substantial reason.
Permits & Regulations
In the context of freedom of assembly under the Philippine Constitution, permits and regulations are established as part of the balance between an individual’s right to peaceful assembly and the government’s role in maintaining public order, safety, and welfare.
While Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, expression, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, the exercise of this right however is subject to reasonable regulations, particularly in terms of time, place, and manner.
Key Legal Provisions:
1. Constitutional Guarantee:
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution explicitly protects the freedom of assembly as a fundamental right.
This freedom is considered one of the most important rights in a democratic society because it allows citizens to express grievances, opinions, and concerns, particularly about government policies.
2. Regulations and Permits:
While the right to assemble is protected, the government has the authority to regulate assemblies, provided the regulations are content-neutral, meaning they do not target the message of the assembly but focus on maintaining public order.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, also known as the Public Assembly Act of 1985, provides the framework for regulating public assemblies in the Philippines. The law mandates that organizers of public assemblies (rallies, demonstrations, protests) should obtain a permit from the local government unit (LGU) where the assembly will take place.
Requirements for Public Assembly Permits:
Permit Requirement: According to BP 880, organizers must file an application for a permit with the local government office at least five days before the scheduled assembly. The application must specify the date, time, and venue of the assembly.
Exceptions to Permit Requirement: No permit is required if the assembly is held in a freedom park, a private property with the consent of the owner, or within the campus of a university or school.
Grounds for Denial of Permit: Local officials may deny a permit application only if there is clear evidence that the assembly poses an imminent and serious threat to public order, safety, or health. The denial must be justified, and the organizers have the right to appeal the decision.
Content-Neutral Regulation and Police Power:
Content-neutral regulation refers to laws or regulations that do not target the specific message or viewpoint of an assembly but instead regulate aspects like traffic, location, and public safety. The regulation should not prevent or restrict speech based on the content of the assembly.
Regulations may impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assemblies, but these must not be overly broad or used to suppress the right itself.
The police have the responsibility to maintain order during public assemblies and ensure public safety, but they must not interfere with the message or purpose of the assembly unless the assembly incites violence or poses an immediate threat to peace and security.
Bayan v. Hermitage (GR No. 169838, April 25, 2006):
The Supreme Court held that Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 is a content-neutral regulation that ensures public assemblies are conducted in an orderly manner without unduly infringing on the right to free assembly.
The Court ruled that the permit system is constitutional as long as it is limited to regulations that ensure the assembly does not threaten public order or safety.
The decision reaffirmed that any restriction or limitation on the right to free assembly must be reasonable and necessary, not an arbitrary or capricious limitation of the right.
​
Public vs Private Properties
Public vs. Private Properties in the Context of Freedom of Assembly
The right to freedom of assembly is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article III, Section 4, which guarantees the right of the people to “peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain regulations, particularly regarding the location of the assembly. One critical factor in the regulation of assemblies is whether they occur on public or private property, as the nature of the property affects the rights and responsibilities of both the assembly organizers and the authorities.
1. Public Properties and Freedom of Assembly
Public properties are government-owned spaces, such as parks, streets, plazas, and other open areas, that are generally accessible to the public. These spaces are traditionally recognized as public forums, where people have the right to gather, speak, and express their opinions. The government may regulate the use of these spaces but must ensure that the regulations are content-neutral and do not unduly infringe upon the right to assemble.
Traditional Public Forum
A traditional public forum includes streets, sidewalks, parks, and similar public places that have historically been used for public expression and assembly. In these areas, the right to assemble is strongly protected, but it is still subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
TPM
Time restrictions: Regulations on when assemblies may be held (e.g., prohibiting rallies late at night to maintain public peace).
Place restrictions: Limitations on where assemblies can occur (e.g., banning protests near certain sensitive government installations or in front of private homes).
Manner restrictions: Rules on how the assembly is conducted (e.g., requiring permits for rallies that involve road closures).
These regulations must be content-neutral, meaning they should not target the message or viewpoint being expressed but rather focus on logistical considerations such as traffic management or public safety. In Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985), organizers of assemblies in public places are generally required to obtain a permit from the local government. However, permits should not be denied arbitrarily or used as a means to suppress lawful assemblies.
Designated Public Forum
A designated public forum is a public property that the government has intentionally opened up for public expression, such as government buildings or auditoriums. While the government can regulate the use of these spaces, it must respect the principles of content neutrality in imposing restrictions.
Limited or Nonpublic Forum
A nonpublic forum includes government properties that are not traditionally open to the public for expressive activities, such as courthouses, schools, or military bases. In such spaces, the government can impose more restrictive regulations on assembly, provided these restrictions are reasonable and not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint.
2. Private Properties and Freedom of Assembly
On private property, the situation is markedly different. Private property refers to spaces owned by individuals, businesses, or private organizations, and in such locations, the right to assemble is more limited compared to public forums.
Consent of the Property Owner
Assemblies on private property require the consent of the property owner. Organizers of public assemblies or protests do not have the same legal right to use private property as they do with public property. The owner of private property can refuse or restrict access to their premises for public demonstrations or gatherings, and doing so does not infringe upon the organizers’ constitutional rights. The right to freedom of assembly does not override the property owner’s right to exclude others from their property.
For example:
Malls, private businesses, or homes: These are not considered public forums, and the owners can restrict or prohibit assemblies within their premises. While malls may allow certain gatherings, these are often subject to the rules set by the mall administration.
Residential properties: Protests or assemblies on private residential properties are not protected by the right to assemble and can be restricted by the property owner.
Trespassing Laws
If individuals attempt to assemble on private property without the owner’s consent, they may be subject to trespassing laws. The owner has the legal right to demand that the protesters leave, and if they refuse, the authorities may intervene to enforce trespass laws.
Cases Involving Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) and Transport Terminals
The issue of private versus public property was discussed in the case of 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015), where the Supreme Court struck down a COMELEC regulation that prohibited the posting of election campaign materials on privately-owned public utility vehicles (PUVs) and transport terminals. The Court ruled that while these vehicles and terminals may serve the public, they remain private property and the owners’ freedom of expression and property rights must be respected. This case illustrates the balance between public service and private ownership in the context of free expression.
3. Hybrid Spaces: Public-Private Partnerships
Some properties, such as shopping malls or private parks, may be owned by private entities but serve a quasi-public function, as they are open to the public and commonly used for public activities. In these cases, the right to assemble may be more complex, as courts must weigh the property rights of the owners against the public’s right to assemble.
For instance, while a privately-owned shopping mall may allow public access, it retains the right to impose rules or deny access for public demonstrations that it deems disruptive to business operations or its customers’ safety. In such cases, courts often defer to the private property owner’s rights, provided the regulations are applied uniformly and without targeting specific viewpoints.
4. Judicial Balancing: Public Interest vs. Private Rights
Courts often employ balancing tests to assess cases involving the exercise of the right to assemble on private property. On one hand, they aim to protect the public’s right to freely express their views; on the other hand, they recognize the property rights of private owners. The key consideration is whether the restrictions imposed by private property owners are reasonable and do not constitute a content-based discrimination.
For example, in the case of Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (502 U.S. 527) in the United States (a case that is persuasive but not binding on Philippine law), the U.S. Supreme Court held that private property rights outweighed the right of nonemployee union organizers to distribute materials on the property. Similarly, Philippine courts often uphold private property rights unless the property has been explicitly opened up for public use, like government facilities or properties that function as public forums.
Conclusion
The distinction between public and private property plays a critical role in determining the extent of the right to freedom of assembly. While public properties provide a strong basis for exercising the right to peaceably assemble, this right is more limited on private properties, where the consent of the property owner is paramount.
Courts play an essential role in safeguarding both the public’s right to assemble and the private property rights of individuals, ensuring a balance between these competing interests. The right to assemble on public property is generally subject to content-neutral regulations, whereas private property owners retain significant control over their spaces.
Judicial Review & Remedy
Judicial Safeguards in the Context of Freedom of Assembly:
In cases where an assembly organizer believes that a permit was unfairly denied, or the regulation of a public assembly violates constitutional rights, judicial safeguards are in place to protect the exercise of the right to free assembly. These safeguards serve to prevent abuses of discretion by the government or local authorities in regulating public assemblies, ensuring that the regulation remains within the bounds of the law and does not infringe on fundamental freedoms.
1. Right to Judicial Review:
One of the key safeguards is the right to judicial review, which allows courts to review the legality of government actions, including the denial of permits for public assemblies. The courts have the power to determine whether the denial of a permit, or any regulation that impacts the right to assemble, is consistent with the Constitution, particularly the guarantee of the right to free speech and peaceful assembly under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985):
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, the legal framework governing public assemblies, if a permit is denied by the local government or police authorities, the applicant has the right to appeal the denial to the mayor’s office or a higher authority within the local government. If the denial is upheld, the applicant can further challenge the decision in court, seeking judicial review of whether the denial violates their right to free assembly.
The Public Assembly Act itself recognizes that the denial of a permit should be based on clear and justifiable grounds, such as the assembly posing a serious threat to public safety, order, or health. The law also requires that such a denial be given in writing, detailing the reasons for the refusal, ensuring that decisions are not made arbitrarily.
3. Timeliness and Expeditious Review:
Given the time-sensitive nature of public assemblies, which are often organized in response to current events or pressing social issues, judicial review of permit denials should be conducted expeditiously. Delays in reviewing the legality of a permit denial could result in the inability of organizers to hold the assembly at the desired time, thus nullifying the purpose of the gathering.
Courts must act promptly to ensure that any wrongfully denied permits are corrected in time for the assembly to proceed. This is particularly important in upholding the principle that the freedom to peaceably assemble must not be unduly restricted by procedural hurdles.
4. Prohibition of Content-Based Denials:
Under Philippine jurisprudence, courts are particularly vigilant when it comes to content-based restrictions on assemblies. If it is shown that a permit was denied based on the message or political views of the organizers rather than legitimate concerns related to public safety, such denials are considered unconstitutional. This principle was reinforced in cases like Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006), where the Supreme Court held that content-neutral regulations are permissible, but any law or regulation that targets specific viewpoints must meet strict scrutiny to survive a constitutional challenge.
5. Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) and Injunctions:
In cases where an organizer believes that their rights have been unfairly restricted, the courts can issue Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) or preliminary injunctions to prevent the authorities from enforcing the denial of a permit, pending a full judicial review of the decision. A TRO can allow the assembly to proceed while the court examines whether the denial was constitutional or whether the regulation violated the rights of the organizers.
6. Supreme Court Intervention:
In cases involving constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom of assembly, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has the final say in interpreting the law and ensuring that it is applied in accordance with the Constitution. If lower courts uphold a denial of a permit, or if there is a broader constitutional issue at stake (such as an overbroad or vague regulation on assemblies), the case can be brought before the Supreme Court. The Court’s power of judicial review extends to striking down laws, ordinances, or actions of government agencies that violate the fundamental rights of citizens.
For example, in 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of a COMELEC resolution that restricted the posting of campaign materials on privately-owned public utility vehicles (PUVs), ruling that the restrictions violated the right to free speech and equal protection. The Court found that the restrictions were not content-neutral and imposed an undue burden on the exercise of free speech, and thus could not stand under judicial scrutiny.
7. Principles Applied in Judicial Review:
In determining the constitutionality of a denial of a permit or any regulation affecting public assemblies, courts generally apply the following tests:
Strict Scrutiny: If the regulation is content-based (i.e., it targets specific viewpoints or messages), it must pass strict scrutiny, meaning the government must show that the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest in the least restrictive way possible.
Intermediate Scrutiny: For content-neutral regulations (i.e., those related to time, place, or manner of assembly), courts apply intermediate scrutiny, requiring that the regulation furthers a significant government interest (e.g., public safety) and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication.
8. Public Interest and the Doctrine of Prior Restraint:
The doctrine of prior restraint also plays a crucial role in cases of permit denials for public assemblies. The courts are particularly cautious when the government imposes restrictions on speech or assembly before the event occurs, as such actions are presumptively unconstitutional. The burden is on the government to justify any prior restraint on public assembly, as it directly affects the exercise of constitutional rights.
Summary on judicial safeguards:
​
Judicial safeguards are essential in ensuring that the right to freedom of assembly is protected from arbitrary or unjustifiable restrictions. The courts play a vital role in reviewing government actions, ensuring that any regulation on public assemblies remains within constitutional bounds and upholding the principle that government restrictions must be content-neutral, reasonable, and justified.
Organizers of public assemblies who believe that their rights have been unfairly curtailed have recourse to the courts, where judicial review provides a critical check on the exercise of government authority.